[swift-evolution] [swift evolution] [proposal] Proposal to add "implement" keyword to denote protocol method implementation

[Step C]

It seems to me there are two options when you have overlapping protocol requirements:

1. Declare one extension that satisfies the group of overlapping protocols. In this case, perhaps A, B, and C.

2. Break up the extensions per protocol. In this case you have the problem that you have to pick which protocol an overlapping method implementation gets grouped with. Alternately, put those methods in a shared extension.

Either way this is far from a perfect solution. But I wonder if practically, it might cover most cases. 

I am not sure there is a way to guarantee full coverage without annotating every protocol method. But given that we don't have optional requirements in protocols, The compiler will tell us if we remove a method we need. So we do not have a huge gap to cover, it seems to me.

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Daniel Duan <daniel at duan.org> wrote:
> 
> (cc swift-evolution)
> 
> 
>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Step C <schristopher at bignerdranch.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The compiler can tell us when we have broken or not completed conformance, agreed. 
>> 
>> If we can empower extensions a bit more, we could also fully group each protocol conformance by extension.
> 
> How would you “group” conformances for the following 3 protocols?
> 
> protocol A {
>  func foo()
>  func bar()
> }
> protocol B {
>  func bar()
>  func baz()
> }
> protocol C: Equatable {
>  func bar()
> }
> 
>